Each Day, an Opinion

Running for the Utah House, District 41, I post a viewpoint on a current issue most every day. House District 41 stretches from Sandy to Herriman. -- John Jackson

Latinos Should Go to the Polls

It won't help my campaign much, as not a large share in my district are Latinos, but I hope Hispanics do turn out to the polls.

The New York Times News Service, in a story carried in today's Deseret News, says that rather than protesting by voting, Latinos might simply not vote at all. They might simply sit the election out.

Better to vote, and I hope they do.

But, Should Immigrants Have Claim to This?

I sit and wonder, reflecting on the above blog, what an advocate of getting rid of undocumented residents would say. Most of them are very Constitutional minded, and lovers of the Declaration of Independence.

I mean them no ill will. Certainly, their view is that the Declaration does not at all call for turning illegal immigrants free. To them, a person who is breaking the law simply is not going to have the same liberties and rights as those who are keeping the law.

It's as simple as that.

Those who feel this way have as much right to believe they are correct as I have for holding to my opinion.

My reply to them, though, is to point out what the "illegal immigrant" is guilty of. He simply doesn't have paperwork -- and the reason he doesn't have it, is because we choose not to give it to him, or make it a years-long process to obtain it.

That is not right. A person wants to be an American, wants to pursue happiness and liberty here, and we say, "No, I don't think so. We really don't want you here"? That is denying them the pursuit of happiness. It is denying them the liberties that come with living in the United States, and denying them without cause. Keep out the law breakers, I say, but let the immigrants not guilty of breaking laws come on in.

"Certain unalienable rights"? Everyone, that tells me, should have these rights.

I do realize what I am saying. This means no one should be deprived of citizenship, should they want to immigrate to the United States. They can be punished for their crimes, and they can be returned to jurisdictions they leave behind for that punishment. Nor would I be against prosecuting them here for crimes they committed abroad, if evidence can be gathered. But, a man without crime should be a welcome soul.

Donkeys & Elephants & Fighting Just to Fight

I wonder if we haven't set up a system of hate, with our political parties. There are Republicans who have nothing nice to say about Democrats, and Democrats who have nothing kind to say about Republicans.

Divide up, and come out fighting. The enemy is on the other side.

Maybe the two-party system is good, but I certainly am not sold on it. For those of you who are Constitutionalists, who yearn for government closer to the Constitution, note that when the founding fathers drafted that document, they made no mention of political parties.

George Washington, in fact, had reservations about them.

Of all the problems our nation has -- the economy, health care, immigration, and so forth -- partisan politics is not the least of them. Consider the rancor and tell me if it is good. Consider that many take stands on issues simply on basis of whether the postion is that of the Democrats or that of the Republicans. Tell me if that is a good way to decide issues. Instead of thinking things through, simply siding with your team.

Well, I don't guess political parties are about to be done away with, but it wouldn't bother me.

It is Loving to Offer Gays Hope

Feelings of attraction toward those of the same sex can be overcome, then. President Boyd K. Packer (president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, that is) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is under attack for what he said in the church's General Conference, with one group calling for him to correct his stand, and with a protest being scheduled for Thursday at City Creek Park.
Oh, that those with same-sex attractions will recognize the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ love them. The Church issued a statement on President Packet's talk which noted the love and said there is no room for hatred or mistreatment of anyone. It said the Church's position on marriage is very clear and based on principles of truth.
Suggesting a person can overcome same-sex feelings is not a negative, but a positive thing to me. It offers hope that such feelings can be overcome. Those who feel it is a negative do so because they do not feel such feelings of attraction are wrong.
My view, as a candidate for office, is that such feelings can be overcome, and effort should be made to do so. I do not agree with those who call on President Packer to correct his position. If President Packer represents God -- and I am among those who say he does -- then asking him to correct his position is the same as asking God to correct his stand.
I do hope those who are gay will consider President Packer's comments, and perhaps conclude to try to overcome their same-sex feelings, and realize it is a loving thing to offer them that hope.

Supreme Court Friendlier to Religion

A little learning can do a man good, make him happy.

Tonight, learned the Supreme Court just these last few years has been more inclined to say, No, the Constitution doesn't say religion should be stripped from government, only that one religion should not be favored above another.

Now, in a world where some believe it wrong to pray in public, wrong to attach Christ to Christmas in public, and wrong to post the 10 Commandments in public parks . . . this is big, learning that the Supreme Court might be shifting the other way.

Was it just less than two months ago a circuit court rules those crosses along Utah highways, honoring fallen state troopers, needed to be taken off public property?

The Constitution doesn't come right out and say church and state shall be separate. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To me, that has meant Congress is not to make laws on religion, but rather it is to take a hands-off approach.

But, it can be argued if that is what was meant, it should have said, "Congress shall make no law regarding" instead of "no law respecting." "Respecting" does leave it open for someone to say government shall not respect religion, shall not give an ear to religion, shall not consider the wants of religion.

But, the word "respecting" can be the same as "concerning," as in, "With respect to that, I would say . . ."

Well, from what I know, I don't think the word "respecting" is what has led to the confusion. I understand it is the word "establishment." "No law respecting an establishment of religion," is interpreted to mean religion shall not be established in any way or any form in our government, and thus it is not to have any part in our government, but is to be separated from it.

Those who feel this the correct interpretation could argue that if the Founding Fathers meant to keep Congress from passing any law affecting religion, they should have said, "Congress shall make no law respecting religion" instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I believe perhaps when they wrote "an establishment of religion," the Founders were simply suggesting no law shall be passed picking on any individual denomination. This would not much change the meaning from what I suggested earlier, that Congress is to have a hands-off approach, for if you can't pick on one, you can't pick on the whole. You might be able to pass legislation about religion, but none of it could negatively affect religion.

And, it could also be argued the Founding Fathers should have written, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion" instead of "no law respecting an establishment of religion" if they meant to keep religion out.

To break the tie, if there even still be one, I would suggest considering the background of the Founders to understand what they meant to say. I do find it hard, knowing there were those of them who brought religion into government that they would be saying God was to be locked out.

George Washington, for example, said in his inauguration address something to the effect that he would be remiss to not acknowledge God.

I Oppose Abortion and Euthanasia

Got an email from a person wanting my stand on five issues.

Abortion: I oppose abortion, save for when the life of the mother is in jeopardy or a competent doctor determines the baby would die, anyway. I haven't fully come to a conclusion on whether I think abortions should be allowed in cases of rape and incest, but tend towards allowing abortion in those situations.

Euthanasia: I oppose bringing death upon someone, even though that person may be suffering an incurable disease. So, I oppose euthanasia. I believe family members should make the decision on whether life support systems are removed, and a person is allowed to die from natural causes.

Stem-cell research: I am not versed enough in what stem cells are to come to a definite opinion. I am against anything that ends the possibility of something becoming life. So, if we allow the stem cell to continue onward, and it becomes a living thing, then I do not favor ending it, whether that is called killing or pre-killing or whatever. The argument we hear in favor of stem-cell research is that these are stem cells that are going to be discarded in labs anyway, and, yes, I agree with the line of reasoning that, then, it is better to use the stem cell for research than to just throw it away. I find myself wondering why the stem cell is being taken from the mother to begin with, why it is that it is even becoming available for research.

Human cloning: I am not prepared to take a stand on cloning.

Same-sex marriage: I oppose it. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. While homosexual relations are against what I believe, however, I believe in respecting the beliefs of those in these relations. I believe in treating them fairly and justly.